Debra da Silva

SID #18252191

EDU5TAR Literature Review

1. Introduction
The debate around the underachievement of boys in the education system is
well documented in the extant literature. It has been reported that, inter alia, boys lag
behind girls in literacy (Newkirk, 2000); are more likely to be referred to a school
psychologist (Murray, 1999); are more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit
disorders (Conrad, 2006); and represent 70% of students with learning disabilities and
80% of those with social/emotional disturbances (Klein et al., 1994). Understanding
the origins of boys underachievement in education is inherently complex, and
characterised by several overlapping and at times conflicting schools of thought.
The last few decades have displayed a shift in attention: whereas in the mid1970s it was girls underperformance that was identified as problematic, in the 1990s
boys underachievement became the focal point (Epstein, 1998; Frosh, Phoenix, &
Pattman, 2002). Titus (2004) reflects that the story of underachieving boys seems to
have arisen recently, even though Murphy and Elwood (1998) recognise that many of
these patterns were known decades ago. While in the past male students were viewed
as personifying the ideal of the educated person (Martin, 1981) and all that was seen as
right and proper in a learner (Francis, 2006 p. 106), according to the claims-makers,
now boys ... are learning what it is to be the second sex (Hoff Sommers, 2000).
Further to this, a sense of crisis was amplified by headlines (How boys lost out to girl
power Lewin (1998)), and writers such as Epstein (1998) and Gilbert and Gilbert
(2001) have described this discourse as a moral panic.
This context provides fertile ground for the development of potentially
inaccurate teacher perceptions (Downey & Pribesh, 2004; Farkas, 2003), and, it is
important to note that one of the most commonly studied sources of perception bias in
teachers' expectation is student gender. By way of example, Hinnant, OBrien, and
Ghazarian (2009) found that teachers have higher expectations of reading ability for
girls than boys. Likewise, Spelke (2005) suggested teachers have higher expectations
for boys in the fields of mathematics.
Central research problem
The key research problem to be investigated is centered on AITLS Standard
3.3, the use of teaching strategies. As a graduate teacher, a key element of my early
career development will be to establish a repertoire of teaching strategies that produce
effective learning in my classroom. Irrespective of the debates in the literature on the
origin of the problem, there is clearly an ongoing issue with boys in education that
needs addressing.
Without diminishing the broader policy debates, especially consideration of
any group (not necessarily gendered) that is disproportionately represented by under-

Debra da Silva

SID #18252191

achievement, my focus in this analysis is to investigate how the current literature can
inform my teaching practice. Against this background of ambiguity, and given the
social discourse on how boys perform in education, how can I frame my expectations
of my students in a manner that gives them every opportunity to succeed?
2. The discourse of boys underachievement
Weaver-Hightower (2008 p. 474) demonstrates this complexity in his review
of the literature on boys education, which divides the research into four main
categories: (1) the popular-rhetorical literature argues that boys are disadvantaged or
harmed by schools and society and that schools are feminised; (2) the theoreticallyoriented literature examines how schools and society produce and modify
masculinities; (3) the practice-oriented literature develops and evaluates classroombased interventions in boys academic and social problems; and (4) feminist responses
critique the moral panic over boys with a social justice focus.
Poor Boys
Epstein (1998) summarises the key issues around three themes: boys will be
boys, poor boys and blaming schools. The celebration of masculinity and a resistance
to a feminine school ethos of diligence and discipline is encapsulated in the boys will
be boys discourse. The poor boys discourse discussed by Mills (2003) positioned boys
as the new disadvantaged, blaming the feminisation of schooling or a crisis of
masculinity for boys underachievement. The third theme, blaming schools discourse
discussed by authors such as Epstein (1998) and Reed (1998) centered on
contemporary policy around standards and effectiveness, where failing schools were
identified and vilified.
Of these themes, the poor boys discourse retains a powerful hegemony within
both the extant literature, ongoing policy debates and the social narrative (Francis &
Skelton, 2005; Skelton, 2001). The Australian House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Education and Trainings (HRSCET 2002 p. 2) claimed that the
absence of fathers, the lack of male teachers, inappropriate curricula and teaching
strategies, feminisation of curricula and assessment systems contributed to boys
apparent underachievement in education. Likewise, Bleach (1998) discussed shattered
male egos, and Thompson (2000) analysed the need to protect the emotional life of
boys.
Boys at Risk and Problem Boys
Francis (2006) argues, in framing the issue of underachieving boys within an
analysis of neo-liberal education policy in the UK, that we need to look beyond the
misogynist tendency of poor boys, which blames females for boys apparent
educational underperformance. Research evidence indicates that social constructions
of gender locate diligence, obedience, and application in the feminine, while
resistance, rebellion and hedonism are located in the masculine (Mills, 2003; Skelton,

Debra da Silva

SID #18252191

2001). This social construction, discussed by Francis and Skelton (2005), Mills (2003)
and Skelton (2001), has contributed to the relative underachievement of boys. As
identified by Francis (2006), these constructions of masculinity continue to be elevated
by society at large, educational policy-makers and within the classroom.
A more concerning trend appears that Francis (2006) identifies as the boys at
risk discourse. The boys at risk discourse, manifested in recent neo-liberal education
policy and ongoing media commentary, as vulnerable and confused, and attributes
their behaviour and educational underperformance as an expression of their insecurity
and alienation. Within this literature, boys are presented as lacking self-esteem and a
socially excluded as a group (Francis, 2006; Francis & Skelton, 2005). Francis (2006)
identifies that such themes are also evident in the arguments of populist writers such as
(Hoff Sommers, 2000) who demonstrate the discursive trend of blaming the
feminisation of educational practice for boys underachievement.
Importantly, Francis (2006) notes that there has been an ongoing shift in the
positioning of particular groups of disruptive and low achieving boys. Previously, the
behaviours of such boys were characterised as expressions of rebellious Alpha-males
within the boys will be boys discourse. However, the ascendency of the
characterisation of problem boys is being developed within social policy in relation
to crime, unemployment, delinquency and other social problems. Francis (2006)
critique of the neo-liberal perspective identifies that these underachieving boys appear
unwilling, or unable, to fit into the meritocratic educational system that produces the
achievement vital for the economic success of the individual concerned (Francis &
Skelton, 2005).
However, it is important to note that there is ongoing debate that the notion of
boys as a group underachieving, or as experiencing low self-esteem, are not based on
evidence (Francis & Skelton, 2005). Indeed, UK statistics show certain groups of boys
achieving high attainment, and studies continue to support findings that boys tend to
hold higher self-esteem in relation to learning than do girls (Sadker & Sadker, 2010;
Sadker, Sadker, & Klein, 1991; Sadker, Sadker, & Zittleman, 2008). As Francis
(2006) discusses, educational policy makers and commentators persist in presenting
boys generally as vulnerable and disaffected.
3. Teaching strategies for boys in a low expectations environment
How does the ongoing discourse on boys underachievement identified by
Francis (2006), Mills (2003) and Skelton (2001) inform my teaching practice,
particularly in relation to the expectations I have for the boys in my class? Three key
issues emerge in this analysis: (1) as a teacher, I have more impact on my students
achievements than any other variable in the education system; (2) the expectations that
I have for my students is powerful, and when correctly informed, can be effective; and
(3) the context within which I teach will affect how my expectations are formed.

Debra da Silva

SID #18252191

The impact of teachers

Hundreds of research studies have focused on the importance of teachers for
student achievement (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2010a), and two key findings emerge.
First, Hanushek and Woessmann (2010a) identified that teaching is the most important
aspect of schools in determining student achievement. Second, they noted that it has
not been possible to identify specific characteristics of teachers that are reliably related
to student outcomes. As a result, no other attribute of schools comes close to having
this much influence on student achievement as does teaching (Hanushek & Rivkin,
2010; Hanushek & Woessmann, 2010b).
The impact of my expectations
The impact of teacher expectations on student performance is well documented
(see, for example, Brophy, 1983; Brophy & Good, 1970; Good, 1987; Jussim &
Harber, 2005) and plays a significant role in the interaction between teachers and
students. The effect within the classroom was established by Brophy and Good (1970),
who found that teachers use different classroom practices with students depending on
whether that hold either high or low academic expectations. Particularly, teachers
praise high expectation students more often for their successes, whereas teachers
criticise low expectation students more often for their failures. Other examples
identified by Good (1987) demonstrate that teachers wait less time for low expectation
students to answer questions, and interact less frequently with low expectation
students.
Significantly, Babad (2009) found that children can detect the differences in
teacher behaviour towards different students, and from this form beliefs about their
teachers' attitudes towards them. The impact of this on students within the class is that
it affects their self-image and motivation (Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2001; Urhahne,
2015; Urhahne & Zhu, 2015). This was first described by Rosenthal and Jacobson
(1968) as the self-fulfilling prophecy or Pygmalion effect. This effect occurs when
students adjust their behavior to meet teacher expectations because they have
internalised teacher beliefs about themselves. This leads high-expectation students to
perform better and low-expectation students to perform worse (Brophy, 1983; Jussim,
Eccles, & Madon, 1996; Rist, 1970).
This influence is especially concerning for the current analysis of boys
underachievement in education. Raudenbush (1984) and Rosenthal and Rubin (1978)
found that the effect on educational achievement appears to be especially significant
for students from culturally stigmatised groups. The meta-analysis conducted by both
Raudenbush (1984) and Rosenthal and Rubin (1978) showed that while the size of the
average expectancy effect is rather small, the impact of the self-fulfilling prophecy
could be up to two to three-times larger in stigmatised groups. These studies, which
were replicated by Jussim et al. (1996), reflected the specific socio-demographic
concerns of the North American educational context in the 1970s and 1980s. As such,
the stigmatised groups identified were female students, low-income students, and
4

Debra da Silva

SID #18252191

African-American students. Within the current discourse, it is important to apply this

thinking to the idea that the currently stigmatised group susceptible to the selffulfilling prophecy includes boys.
How my expectations are formed
Research undertaken by Reynolds and Teddlie (2000) and Rubie-Davies (2007,
2014a, 2014b) demonstrate that there is an extensive literature advocating the benefits
of developing a high expectations classroom environment. However, Brault, Janosz,
and Archambault (2014) noted that high teacher expectations can only occur with a
deeper understanding of the causal factors. A substantial body of research by
educational psychologists (see, for example, Jussim et al., 1996; Jussim & Harber,
2005) concludes that teacher perceptions of childrens academic skills are relatively
accurate and that socio-demographic differences in teacher perceptions reflect
empirical social phenomenon. However, it is also recognised by Ready and Wright
(2011) that while we know that socio-demographic characteristics (in particular,
gender) influence teacher perceptions, we know little of how these perceptions are
formed and to what extent they influence the formation of expectations for those
students. Perhaps more importantly, there is also little known about the degree to
which inaccurate teacher judgments exacerbate educational inequality.
Of specific relevance to my role as a graduate teacher, authors such as RubieDavies (2007) and Archambault, Janosz, and Chouinard (2012) have argued that
teachers with high self-efficacy are more likely to set higher goals for their students.
Based on this, a key element of my professional development in creating a high
expectations environment in my classroom will be first to focus on developing my
self-efficacy as a teacher. However, my development as a graduate teacher is not
devoid of the context within which it takes place.
A key context of teaching relevant to the formation of expectations of students
is the interactions between teachers. Little (1990) examined how peer interactions
influence teacher perceptions. Hargreaves (1984) and Jordell (1987) describe the
staffroom as a place where teachers can relax and get advice or moral support for
some of their professional problems. Kainan (1994) showed how staffroom
conversations dealt mostly with news about students, how this information creates a
common description of students, and how these descriptions protect the teachers
collective feeling of control and ability.
As noted by Kennedy (2010), it is critical to look beyond the teacher to the
teaching situation itself: the school, the classroom, the teachers schedule, and the
teachers resources. Relevant questions to how I form expectations of students within
my class speak directly to Kainans (1994) research on teaching from the perspective
of work in complex organisations. This has also been recognised by McLaughlin
(1993), Lightfoot (1983) and Rosenholtz and Simpson (1990) as the contexts of
teaching: that within a school, there are multiple embedded contexts that define the

Debra da Silva

SID #18252191

school as a workplace, and teachers are influenced by the settings in which they work
and so school contexts shape teaching.
4. Conclusion
Key Limitations
There are several key limitations in the consideration of these issues. Most
importantly, this review does not consider that many groups within society are
disproportionately represented in educational under-achievement, based along lines of
class and race. This singular focus on gender, although relevant to the notion of crisis
in boys education, may mask underlying issues of disadvantage and social exclusion
that transcend a single-issue analysis. Additionally, the analysis does not account for
how the students interpret the expectations that teachers portray about them. Within
any given class, students can vary greatly in their perception of the same events.
Lastly, this analysis does not account for the role of expectations communicated by
significant non-teaching relationships, such as peers and family.
Future research directions
Irrespective of my future teaching context, understanding how the social
discourse on boys in education informs the expectations that I take with me into the
classroom is a critical issue. These expectations, reinforced or not by the complex
organisational process that exist within schools, will have an empirical effect on the
academic outcomes of the students that I am responsible for educating. From this, two
key research questions emerge: (1) what is the impact of the social discourse on
underachievement, embodied in teacher expectations, on boys academic outcomes?
and (2) how are those expectations translated from social discourse to teacher narrative
within the classroom?
The design for investigating these questions naturally lends itself to an action
research study, ideally undertaken across multiple contexts of both single-sex and
coeducational educational settings.
5. References
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of
adolescents cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. The
Journal of Educational Research, 105(5), 319-328.
Babad, E. (2009). Teaching and nonverbal behavior in the classroom International
handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 817-827): Springer.
Bleach, K. (1998). Raising Boys' Achievement in Schools: ERIC.
Brault, M.-C., Janosz, M., & Archambault, I. (2014). Effects of school composition
and school climate on teacher expectations of students: A multilevel analysis.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 148-159.

Debra da Silva

SID #18252191

Brophy, J. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5), 631.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential
expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(5), 365.
Conrad, P. (2006). Identifying hyperactive children: The medicalization of deviant
behavior: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Downey, D. B., & Pribesh, S. (2004). When race matters: Teachers' evaluations of
students' classroom behavior. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 267-282.
Epstein, D. (1998). Failing boys?: Issues in gender and achievement: McGraw-Hill
Education (UK).
Farkas, G. (2003). Racial disparities and discrimination in education: What do we
know, how do we know it, and what do we need to know? The Teachers
College Record, 105(6), 1119-1146.
Francis, B. (2006). Heroes or zeroes? The discursive positioning of underachieving
boys in English neo-liberal education policy. Journal of Education Policy,
21(2), 187-200.
Francis, B., & Skelton, C. (2005). Reassessing gender and achievement: Questioning
contemporary key debates: Routledge.
Frosh, S., Phoenix, A., & Pattman, R. (2002). Young masculinities: Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Gilbert, P., & Gilbert, R. (2001). Masculinity, inequality and post-school
opportunities: disrupting oppositional politics about boys' education.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(1), 1-13.
Good, T. L. (1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and
future directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 32-47.
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added
measures of teacher quality. The American Economic Review, 267-271.
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2010a). The economics of international
differences in educational achievement (Vol. No. w15949). National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2010b). The High Cost of Low Educational
Performance: The Long-Run Economic Impact of Improving PISA Outcomes:
ERIC.
Hargreaves, A. (1984). Experience counts, theory doesn't: How teachers talk about
their work. Sociology of Education, 244-254.

Debra da Silva

SID #18252191

Hinnant, J. B., OBrien, M., & Ghazarian, S. R. (2009). The longitudinal relations of
teacher expectations to achievement in the early school years. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(3), 662.
Hoff Sommers, C. (2000). Girls rule! The war against boys. The Atlantic Monthly, pp.
59-74.
Jordell, K. . (1987). Structural and personal influences in the socialization of
beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(3), 165-177.
Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and
teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling
prophecy. Advances in experimental social psychology, 28, 281-388.
Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling
prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies.
Personality and social psychology review, 9(2), 131-155.
Kainan, A. (1994). Staffroom grumblings as expressed teachers' vocation. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 10(3), 281-290.
Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality.
Educational researcher, 39(8), 591-598.
Klein, S. S., Ortman, P. E., Campbell, P., Greenberg, S., Hollingsworth, S., Jacobs, J.,
. . . Sadker, D. (1994). Continuing the journey toward gender equity.
Educational researcher, 23(8), 13-21.
Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Classroom and developmental
differences in a path model of teacher expectancy effects. Child development,
72(5), 1554-1578.
Lewin, T. (1998). How boys lost out to girl power. New York Times, 12, 1.
Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The lives of teachers. Handbook of teaching and policy, 241260.
Little, J. W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching.
Review of research in education, 297-351.
Martin, J. R. (1981). Needed: A new paradigm for liberal education.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What Matters Most in Teachers' Workplace Context? In J.
W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers' Work: Individuals,
Colleagues and Contexts. (pp. 73-103). New York: Teachers College Press.
Mills, M. (2003). Shaping the boys' agenda: The backlash blockbusters. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 7(1), 57-73.
Murphy, P., & Elwood, J. (1998). Gendered experiences, choices and achievement
exploring the links. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2(2), 95-118.

Debra da Silva

SID #18252191

Murray, B. (1999). Boys to men: Emotional miseducation. APA Monitor, 30(1), 38-39.
Newkirk, T. (2000). Misreading masculinity: Speculations on the great gender gap in
writing. Language Arts, 294-300.
Raudenbush, S. W. (1984). Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a
function of the credibility of expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings
from 18 experiments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 85.
Ready, D. D., & Wright, D. L. (2011). Accuracy and Inaccuracy in Teachers
Perceptions of Young Childrens Cognitive Abilities The Role of Child
Background and Classroom Context. American Educational Research Journal,
48(2), 335-360.
Reed, L. R. (1998). Zero tolerance': gender performance. Failing Boys?, 56.
Reynolds, D., & Teddlie, C. (2000). 4 The Processes of School Effectiveness. The
international handbook of school effectiveness research, 134.
Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling
prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard educational review, 40(3), 411-451.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of
teachers' commitment. Sociology of Education, 241-257.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review,
3(1), 16-20.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345
studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(03), 377-386.
Rubie-Davies, C. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high-and
low-expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2),
289-306.
Rubie-Davies, C. (2014a). Becoming a high expectation teacher: Raising the bar:
Routledge.
Rubie-Davies, C. (2014b). Teachers' instructional beliefs and the classroom climate.
International Handbook of Research on Teachers Beliefs, 266.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (2010). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat
girls. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Sadker, M., Sadker, D., & Klein, S. (1991). The issue of gender in elementary and
secondary education. Review of research in education, 269-334.
Sadker, M., Sadker, D. M., & Zittleman, K. R. (2008). Teachers, schools, and society:
McGraw-Hill New York.

Debra da Silva

SID #18252191

Skelton, C. (2001). Schooling the Boys: Masculinities and Primary Education.

Educating Boys, Learning Gender: ERIC.
Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and
science?: a critical review. American Psychologist, 60(9), 950.
Titus, J. J. (2004). Boy trouble: Rhetorical framing of boys' underachievement.
Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 25(2), 145-169.
Urhahne, D. (2015). Teacher behavior as a mediator of the relationship between
teacher judgment and students' motivation and emotion. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 45, 73-82.
Urhahne, D., & Zhu, M. (2015). Accuracy of teachers' judgments of students'
subjective well-being. Learning and individual differences, 43, 226-232.
Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (2008). The Politics of Policy in Boys' Education: Getting
Boys" right". London: Palgrave Macmillan.

10